W ITHIN recent years many workers have been attempting to learn what happens to trout after planting. The usual method used has been to mark fish before planting by removal of fins or by tagging. Subsequent returns to counting weirs, in the case of migratory species, have formed the basis of conclusions as to survival rates. Foerster's work (1936) on sockeye salmon of the Cultus Lake system in British Columbia was the first to demonstrate the efficiency of natural propagation compared with artificial propagation of an anadromous species of fish. As is well known, the chief method employed in this work was not marking of large numbers of fish from which later total survival was determined, but to permit runs of the adult salmon to spawn naturally in some years, and in other years to strip the fish, hatch the eggs after the usual hatchery procedure, and to plant the resultant young back into the system. His method gave a measure of the difference between artificial and natural reproduction. In streams containing so-called non-migratory, inland trout, the problem of survival leads to considerable difficulties because all adults obviously cannot be trapped at one suitable trap or weir in their parent stream. The usual method used in such waters has been to mark fish prior to planting. Later records based on anglers' catches of marked fish have been used to calculate survival rates. Much allied useful information on migration, growth rates, production per acre, condition and trends of the angling, etc., has also been produced by such experimental work. The planting of marked fish, coupled with records of anglers' catches, leaves much to be desired. The immediate objective-survival of any given plant of fish-may be obtained with fair accuracy provided records of anglers' catches are sufficiently complete, and provided they are taken over the average life span of the marked fish planted. However, the facts thus obtained will not necessarily tell why any given survival rate was obtained, an answer that seems better afforded by the experimental stream method. The gap between planting and the anglers' creel is where our greatest ignorance lies today. In the application to management problems, we have yet to evaluate the fundamental ecological elements causing losses of planted trout, be they predation, disease, temperature, food, or cannibalism. Complete records of anglers' catches on selected waters will tell the story of what a water is producing to anglers in terms of pounds or numbers of fish caught per unit of water area. But what any given water should produce on a basis of its normal biological productivity is what we should know to balance actual fish crops against potential crops in the management program. White (1930) reported on experimental planting of trout in streams of Ontario and Prince Edward Island. He records many practical and scientific problems that confront workers attempting to determine survival rates of
Read full abstract